Forum menu
Given their only purpose is to concentrate power and wealth in the hands of the wealthy then yes. Very successful
The policy of privatisation of the NHS by stealth to their mates and the Septics is also going tickety boo.
Furlough during covid – good idea, poorly implemented but if it had put in place properly it wouldn’t have been rolled out so quickly.
Same for the 10k COVID grants for businesses on business rates. Fast rollout poor implementation.
Both policies worked – but we’re too easy to take advantage of, a down side to the quick roll out imo. I also don’t personally see them as typical Tory policy.
Other than that I can’t think of anything.
Of course, the only reason they did this was so that those that think that anyone on benefits are just scroungers getting loads of undeserved money, would have had their eyes opened. Even on (what was it, 85%?), a lot of people thought they struggled!
Now everyone can help to pay it all back!!
Wound Owen Jones up to flounce level
... but the Labour party did it even better
The cycle to work scheme i think is from their era
Also a general tightening on landlords, making their borrowing more expensive, increasing tenant rights, improving the ability of the first time buyer to access finance have all helped balance the swing towards private landlords (possibly not enough)
Our electricity grid has drastically decarbonised over the last decade, and the Tories have had a hand in it:
https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/how-uk-transformed-electricity-supply-decade/
Fair play.
Permitted Development changes were helpful to anyone looking to build an extension without the sometimes awful interaction required with planning office.
they’ve worked perfectly in that they have transferred more and more wealth to the rich
This over and over.
That is the aim. And it's not a tricky one.
Although technically it's not a policy and they would claim trickle down, so it doesn't work actually.
Let's call the policy trickle-up.
nov23 to mar24 ftse100 up from 7300 to 7900, clearly the latest policies are working
Higher interest rates for you. Rich people have to put all that interest income somewhere.
Given their only purpose is to concentrate power and wealth in the hands of the wealthy then yes. Very successful
It's not a policy though. (But I agree with you.)
It's not a policy that's written down and available for us plebs to see, it's more like central party doctrine. By whatever means possible - tax cuts for higher rate taxpayers, express lanes for dodgy PPE contracts, non-existent ferries, the list goes on - and they are very good at it.
They aren't very good at hiding it. Follow the money used to be the refrain, now we have breadcrumb trails of fresh £50s direct to their doors, but they don't care anyway.
"Decarbonising was also driven by outside forces with a lot of resistance within the Tory party and also a desire NOT to invest in Scotland ie tidal and wave."
😆
On the more general question, it’s a matter of perspective. I don’t know of anything that could be said to be a net benefit to the country as a whole, but their deliberate attack on the NHS has clearly achieved what they wanted now that Labour are arguing for more privatisation of healthcare.
This. And I pointed it out a day or so ago on the Sunak thread.
Anyway I’d suggest the 2015 Pension ‘freedom’ changes were generally a good thing – even if it could have been done better.
I'm on the fence here, as I think that time will say differently and all that's occurred is we'll have an increase in pensioners on pension credits and the like as they've spent all their pension cash early. There's also the issue that rolling forward less and less final salary pensions will be available and consequently less overall cash anyway, and more pensioners on benefits.
Quote:
"£9k fees was a shitstorm but did do exactly what was intended in: (a) increasing funding for universities, which was perilously low in the late 00s; and (b) allowing student number caps to be lifted and many more people to access HE, especially from disadvantaged backgrounds."
You're going to need to expand on how increasing upfront costs improves access to HE '...especially [for people] from disadvantaged backgrounds.' I would have said that it had exactly the opposite effect - locking disadvantaged people out and reserving HE for the already well-heeled. So yes, a perfectly successful Tory policy.
Without the lifetime ISA it would have taken quite a bit longer to get my house deposit to the point where I could purchase. Obviously it's not straightforward as the policy is probably contributing to house price rises, but it was a damn tough battle to keep up with the offers being made by people already on the ladder, who had generated massive deposits through paying their own mortgage rather than their landlords. On balance, probably a positive policy, for me, but perhaps there are better ways to deal with the issue.
Really it depends how far back you want to go. Pre-thatcher when the post-war Tory Party was fundamentally a social democratic party Tory governments regularly implemented policies which benefited ordinary working people, including nationalising struggling companies to save people's jobs. Although the big reforms came from Labour governments.
The obvious policy that comes to mind from that period is the housing programme overseen by Harold McMillan who was responsible for 300,000 council houses per year. It greatly helped to provide affordable homes during the post-war housing crisis. Although Thatcher was to later totally undermine those achievements during her quest to "roll back socialism".
You’re going to need to expand on how increasing upfront costs improves access to HE ‘…especially [for people] from disadvantaged backgrounds.’ I would have said that it had exactly the opposite effect – locking disadvantaged people out and reserving HE for the already well-heeled. So yes, a perfectly successful Tory policy.
@PhilO your misconception is common and forgiveable.
- Prior to 2012/13, government imposed a hard cap on the number of students universities were allowed to recruit each year - this existed under Labour too, right through the 00s. This is because there is no such thing as free education - if graduates are paying less (or nothing), more is coming from general taxation.
- In 2013 - shortly after £9k fees were announced - George Osborne announced number caps would be relaxed in 2014/15 and abolished completely in 2015/16.
- As a consequence, an 18-year-old from the most disadvantaged areas in England (i.e. POLAR quintile 1) is >70% more likely to go into HE in 2023 than 2010.
You’re going to need to expand on how increasing upfront costs improves access to HE
£9k fees didn't increase upfront costs - tuition fee loans are available to cover the full costs of fees. And they only need to be paid back if you are earning over £27.3k/year (if you did a degree between 2012-2023). For new students this year its £25k/yr.
You’re going to need to expand on how increasing upfront costs improves access to HE ‘…especially [for people] from disadvantaged backgrounds.’ I would have said that it had exactly the opposite effect – locking disadvantaged people out and reserving HE for the already well-heeled. So yes, a perfectly successful Tory policy.
I'm with finbar on this one.
The student debt is scary, but in reality is just makes your tax rates look more like:
£12,500-£25,000 20%
£25,000-£50,000 31.25%
£50,000- 55%
etc until you're ~52(ish) unless you're doing well in which case you'll pay it all off sooner.
There's arguments both ways, but at the end of the day the loans are basically a graduate tax, and that at least incentivises universities to provide courses that offer a return on investment for students. Whereas just adding that to everyone's tax bill doesn't offer any incentive to consider alternative career paths.
The only thing I'd like to see change is it should be paid before tax, you don't pay BiK on workplace training and I think a degree should be treated the same.
A graduate tax on the young, that older generations of graduates don’t have to pay.
A graduate tax on the young, that older generations of graduates don’t have to pay.
What's your solution then, a 10% tax on being over 40 (give or take a bit the current age of the last people to go through uni with the lowest fees)? A raid on pensions for £40k + 40 years interest when they retire? £40k+ 65 years interest on all inheritance tax?
There are wider societal benefits to having university graduates, but that's largely reflected in their pay (yay, capitalism).
Tax people based on their ability to pay. Fees paid by the state for the younger generations just as they were for the older generations. Just as we do for GCSEs and A Levels. Living costs is another conversation, but the state absolutely should be paying for the education, and we should all be taxed based on our earnings and wealth whatever our ages and whatever age we ended our education.
I’m on the fence here, as I think that time will say differently and all that’s occurred is we’ll have an increase in pensioners on pension credits and the like as they’ve spent all their pension cash early. There’s also the issue that rolling forward less and less final salary pensions will be available and consequently less overall cash anyway, and more pensioners on benefits.
Firstly I'd suggest that people should be allowed to manage their money as they see fit. Pensions included.
Secondly Pensioners on benefits could be swung as good and bad. Living on benefits 2 years after retirement clearly a sub optimal thing. However all that pension pot has at least been spent and used to buy goods & services stimulating the economy & providing jobs. That can only be a good thing overall.
Lol – not one of those 8 points is anything to do with UK Government policy. In fact points 7 and 8 imply the FTSE has gone up despite govt’s woeful interventions on the economy
Yes happy accident maybe because interest rates were supposed to crush the economy but fiscal flows from extra money paid by central banks have made their way into portfolios.
I'm not saying it's a good result (unless you have bags of cash) but that's where the money came from.
The Tories are all about distribution or lack of. And the wealthy get the bags every time.
Central bank policy is defined by government so they're totally linked.
However that is only a success story if you're one of the few. Central bank is after all a payer of net money to the economy currently.
Overall it's a failure of policy in my mind because monetarists didn't expect this intended result and likely adding to inflation.
Larry Summers in a tizz to explain it in the USA where the government is paying the equivalent of 6% of GDP via interest income.
You really do have to ignore the shite we've been told about interest rates and look under the hood a little.
As an aside it's no accident either that BTC has gone a bull run too.
Obviously not linked to Tory policy at this level but central banks have followed the Fed mostly.
^ agree with all that @rone, it's just that the AI text on the previous page wasn't very insightful.
Just as we do for GCSEs and A Levels.
The difference between school and university education is that school gives you a broad enough education to succeed in a lot of careers. It makes sense that everyone from Accountants to Zoologists pay for everyone to study to that level.
University is then far more specialized. A Chemical Engineering graduate is of little benefit to anyone other than the engineering industry, a Dr is only of use to hospitals, a dentist is only of use to dental practices, etc (mostly, not everyone follows that path but >>50%).
Tax people based on their ability to pay
Graduates typically earn a lot more.
If taxation to pay for universities was spread over the whole population then they'd be paying for it twice. Once when they pay for the education, and once when they pay the wages of the Dr, Dentist or Engineer.
And without some level of personal responsibility for that cost it removes all market forces from that decision. I excelled at geography through school, I dropped something silly like 5 marks over the entire AS and A-level. But I did an engineering degree because frankly if I as going to pay for it I wanted a return on investment. On the other hand there should be a disincentive for studying degrees for which there are fewer direct career paths. The world does need Geography graduates, but not every Geography graduate probably needed a 3-4 year degree in the subject. So it makes sense that the market should encourage only those who really want to go into those careers do those courses.
Just like there will be people for whom formal education isn't what they want but still go onto well paid careers. They are incentivized to get a 4 year head start in the workplace and not accrue student debt.
It goes hand in hand with the idea of limiting places. Either it's free, but you put in place an admissions process that selects those who will benefit society most from their chosen degrees. Or you make is self selecting by those who use it. And the self selecting model has delivered more access to university for those from poorer backgrounds rather than it being a place for private and grammar school alumni and the best of the rest which was historically still very middle class .
Firstly I’d suggest that people should be allowed to manage their money as they see fit. Pensions included.
Secondly Pensioners on benefits could be swung as good and bad. Living on benefits 2 years after retirement clearly a sub optimal thing. However all that pension pot has at least been spent and used to buy goods & services stimulating the economy & providing jobs. That can only be a good thing overall.
So the State AKA taxpayers have to again pick up the tab, would you describe this as a left or right wing policy?
Either it’s free, but you put in place an admissions process that selects those who will benefit society most from their chosen degrees.
That's a false choice. Educate everyone up to a higher level (if they have the aptitude and will). There is no reason not to.
Graduates typically earn a lot more.
Taxation based on income and wealth accounts for that. An extra tax being paid only by younger people doesn't make any sense.
The French system of a state pension seems more equitable.
Absolutely not so. The disparities it creates are even greater than in the UK.
The UK state pension is simply number of years contributed /35 x state pension. In France it's heavily biased to the last years so if you worked 10 years thirty years ago it's worth almost nothing. The non state part works the same. If you haven't contributed enough you still get a very basic pension (less than UK at current exchange rates) but it's taken from any capital remaining at your death.
Even the way it's funded, those working now pay for those retired means fleecing one generation to pay another. The system, though flawed as above, worked before the Boomers reached retirement age but now has too few paying too much and too many retired for the system to work. Rob the young to pay the old.
I'm not saying the UK system is great but your key word was "equitable" and IMO the UK state system is more equitable.
And on topic. Pensioners are the Tory greatest supporters and Tories know that. The highest relative poverty in the UK is in people aged 60-64, not the retired.
I'm not the only one who thinks this:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/apr/24/old-get-the-benefits-tories-the-election-wins
The Tory policy of cutting benifts to young people an increasing them to pensioners to maximise votes has worked.
The Tories have promised to give us overseas residents our votes back. Now why would they give overseas residents their votes back? To get more votes from all the retired UK passport holders living abroad !
I'll reach UK retirement age soon and I'll have a vote, it'll be very tempting to vote Tory 🙂
I think it is generally accepted amongst those who would typically vote conservative that the current government is conservative in name only, and we live under a continuation of the Blair project. If they had delivered on manifesto promises and passed legislation that steered the country back in a recognisably traditional Tory direction, those voters wouldn't be sitting on their hands come election time. The indicators are that Labour won't be winning new voters but traditional Tory voters will either become non voters or will give a protest vote to Reform. We're living under a high tax, high inflation regime with big state meddling, command and control, essentially a socialist economic model, with weak, direction less leadership, increasingly two tier authoritarian legal system, and failure to deliver Brexit or secure the boeder. After 14 years of "conservatism". The difference this time is Labour will inherit a broken economy and increasing social unrest, rather than an improving one which they can take the credit for.
So the State AKA taxpayers have to again pick up the tab, would you describe this as a left or right wing policy?
It doesn't have to left wing v right wing.
Scenario 1: Person pays into a pension all their working days. Retires and on first day of retirement buys an annuity from a Pension Co. Just as with casino's, the game is rigged in favour that the pension co. It will therefore overall stand to gain from that transaction.
Scenario 2 : Person pays into pension all their working days and on first day of retirement, age 67 gets hold of their pot. over the following 20 years proceeds to spend all that pot on going to Dobbies garden centre, going out to cafes, buying camper van / going on holiday / cruises, getting their house decorated and garden done. Once they reach 87 they're "broke".
Whats better for the UK a whole? Focusing the profit on the pension co retaining the bulk of it or Scenario 2 where more wealth is distributed around the economy?
I go got option 2 myself. And frankly if they've worked all their days and paid their taxes, frankly they should be entitled to some free money.
That’s a false choice. Educate everyone up to a higher level (if they have the aptitude and will). There is no reason not to.
Even if it was free, that's 3+ years of economic inactivity from the (on paper at least) brightest and best.
I'd love to go back and do a couple more masters degrees. But in reality that would cost ~£10k plus lost earnings each year, and I know I'd not get a return on that, so I won't do it. If it was paid for out of general taxation that would cost HMRC almost £30k in fees and lost income tax, plus whatever my employer makes in profit being taxed, plus the multiplier effect of that both inside the company (HR, IT, estates etc) and spending outside.
£30k+ is another Dr or teacher.
If I want to learn to another masters level then I could, most degree reading lists are what £500-£1000/year (10 modules, £50-£100 per textbook if you don't have access to a university library) ? It's not formal lectures, tutorials and qualifications, but the personal and intrinsic benefit would be the same.
The cycle to work scheme i think is from their era
Don't think so, I had my first C2W scheme bike in 07... definitely Labour era. (still commute on that bike!)
Just googled it... 1999 it was first brought in!
that would cost HMRC almost £30k in fees and lost income tax
If more education “tends” to mean higher earnings afterwards, as you claim, then that all comes out in the wash.
If more education means greater earning potential, then once you earn more, you would pay more tax.
None of this needs an extra tax that only younger people pay, even if not high earners.
Why should a 25 year old graduate pay a tax that a 50 year old graduate does not?
Why should a 25 year old graduate pay a tax that a 50 year old graduate does not?
Because even in MMT someone has to.
And the key benefit of the new system is it's actually increased participation in higher education outside of the traditional middle classes.
The horse has bolted on Gen-X paying back for it's education, it wouldn't be a vote winner.
If more education means greater earning potential, then once you earn more, you would pay more tax.
So in an ideal world where people did degrees based on their value to society, that might work. A trade derives a benefit from graduates in their field. Welders benefit from more engineering grads. Farmers benefit from vets. Electricians benefit from electrical engineers. Everyone ends up being more productive and can pay more in taxes to fund that benefit.
What's less beneficial is someone doing a degree, then becoming a welder or farmer because they enjoy it. The loss then is the fees and economic inactivity. There should be an incentive to leave school and do an apprenticeship in welding or farming for that person.
"Whats better for the UK a whole? Focusing the profit on the pension co retaining the bulk of it or Scenario 2 where more wealth is distributed around the economy?"
This is TikTok economics. Pension funds don't just sit on money, they invest it actively using the most sophisticated systems and educated people to squeeze every last shred of growth out of it. And sometimes that still turns out to be a disaster. But whatever happens the net impact of that investment across the economy is gonna be better than individual divs like us buying consumption goods (tat) and then ending up on benefits for the rest of our lives, being a drag on those still in the workforce.
Whilst no one can claim levelling up has been a success, I was pleasantly surprised to see funds actually being used to save an iconic building/venue local to me.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-68646715
edit - actually can't be bothered
Because even in MMT someone has to.
What kind of answer is that? Why should young people pay an additional tax, starting at £25k of income, that older people do not? I can’t see any answer other than to discourage young people from eduction… or even more cynically, because there’s more older voters that benefit from this imbalance, so turn the screws on those least likely to vote for you anyway.
What kind of answer is that? Why should young people pay an additional tax, starting at £25k of income, that older people do not? I can’t see any answer other than to discourage young people from eduction… or even more cynically, because there’s more older voters that benefit from this imbalance, so turn the screws on those least likely to vote for you anyway.
well a lot of older people will already have paid for their education either up front or via a paid off loan, so making them pay twice for something seems deeply unfair.
I think a grad tax for anyone who attends a course after date x on any earnings above y is a reasonable thing - its effectively the same pattern we have today but without the mental burdon of extra debt sitting over you.
Minister for anti-wokeness got tax payer help for her mortgage on her 2nd London home (her other house was being let out).
That policy certainly worked for her.
well a lot of older people will already have paid for their education either up front
Us oldies paid nothing for our higher education. We may have funded most of our living costs (and obviously choose to forgo most of our wages while studying) but the education itself was paid for from general taxation. There is no reason for the education of young people to be funded only by young people other than to deter them, or because the political power lies with the older generations who are happy for it to be that way.
I think a grad tax for anyone who attends a course after date x on any earnings above y is a reasonable thing
Or, all high income and high wealth individuals pay more tax... if the state requires more taxation as a tradeoff for funding the education of young people.
Julie would not have gone to university if it was loans. From her not well off background she had a fear of debt. Logical or not that was her position